whitman wrote:I'd always assumed USC was more mobile than WashU. I think there might be more of an element of self-selection than you're accounting for. People want to stay on the West Coast because they like it, and went to USC partially because they had that intention. They go to WashU and think, let me get the FUCK out of here.

Maybe I'm wrong. What do y'all think? Does USC provide any sort of mobility, objectively speaking? If not, where does its reach extend to? Just SoCal? all of California? Pacific Northwest? Rest of the country? How about compared to WashU?

I think you're right that self-selection is a big part USC's non mobility. Only 32% of USC's students come from outside the state, and thus the majority of USC students are from and want to stay in Cali, and probably don't care about its non mobility. But I also think that its non mobility does, or might in the future, prevent it from attracting top out of state candidates. As I said before, if you're not from Cali, you might not want to stay there, and thus non mobility might be a problem for you. Stated differently, although some of its non mobility is self selection, its non mobility also probably reinforces its non mobility to some degree.

There are also several law schools in Cali that are one the rise and might be able to start stealing away talent from USC one day. Therefore recruiting top out of state talent will be increasingly important if USC wants to keep its medians up relative to schools like WUSTL.

As far as mobility, yes WUSTL is more mobile than USC by far. (a good resource for this comparison - http://www.nalplawschoolsonline.org/). Granted though, this is also somewhat forced/self-selection. Not a ton of WUSTL grads want to stay in St. Louis, and St. Louis is not a huge legal market. So alot of them leave by force or by choice. However, regardless of the reason for its mobility, it is more mobile. This mobility might attract more top students from other regions who want to keep their options open.

whitman wrote:I'd always assumed USC was more mobile than WashU. I think there might be more of an element of self-selection than you're accounting for. People want to stay on the West Coast because they like it, and went to USC partially because they had that intention. They go to WashU and think, let me get the FUCK out of here.

Maybe I'm wrong. What do y'all think? Does USC provide any sort of mobility, objectively speaking? If not, where does its reach extend to? Just SoCal? all of California? Pacific Northwest? Rest of the country? How about compared to WashU?

I think you're right that self-selection is a big part USC's non mobility. Only 32% of USC's students come from outside the state, and thus the majority of USC students are from and want to stay in Cali, and probably don't care about its non mobility. But I also think that its non mobility does, or might in the future, prevent it from attracting top out of state candidates. As I said before, if you're not from Cali, you might not want to stay there, and thus non mobility might be a problem for you. Stated differently, although some of its non mobility is self selection, its non mobility also probably reinforces its non mobility to some degree.

There are also several law schools in Cali that are one the rise and might be able to start stealing away talent from USC one day. Therefore recruiting top out of state talent will be increasingly important if USC wants to keep its medians up relative to schools like WUSTL.

As far as mobility, yes WUSTL is more mobile than USC by far. (a good resource for this comparison - http://www.nalplawschoolsonline.org/). Granted though, this is also somewhat forced/self-selection. Not a ton of WUSTL grads want to stay in St. Louis, and St. Louis is not a huge legal market. So alot of them leave by force or by choice. However, regardless of the reason for its mobility, it is more mobile. This mobility might attract more top students from other regions who want to keep their options open.

I also could be wrong though. Can we get some USC perspectives?

sure, USC grads stay in LA and WUSTL grads go all round the country, thus WUSTL is more mobile. I agree. but my point was that at this point - when we're talking about two schools that are not top law schools - calling a school more "mobile" is a euphemism for saying they have no market they're especially strong at. at the upper levels, schools without set markets (such as michigan) can tout their "mobility" as a strength, but at this level i think it's all about trying to make up for what your school lacks in prestige with local strength. like i said, both USC grads and WUSTL grads are hoping to be competitive against t-14 grads with similar class ranks. at least USC can do so in one market (LA), WUSTL can't do so anywhere.

also, i'm a 0L so my opinion has been formed based on what i've learned here and there, not from actual experience. i'd also love to hear from actual WUSTL and USC grads.

whitman wrote:I'd always assumed USC was more mobile than WashU. I think there might be more of an element of self-selection than you're accounting for. People want to stay on the West Coast because they like it, and went to USC partially because they had that intention. They go to WashU and think, let me get the FUCK out of here.

Maybe I'm wrong. What do y'all think? Does USC provide any sort of mobility, objectively speaking? If not, where does its reach extend to? Just SoCal? all of California? Pacific Northwest? Rest of the country? How about compared to WashU?

I think you're right that self-selection is a big part USC's non mobility. Only 32% of USC's students come from outside the state, and thus the majority of USC students are from and want to stay in Cali, and probably don't care about its non mobility. But I also think that its non mobility does, or might in the future, prevent it from attracting top out of state candidates. As I said before, if you're not from Cali, you might not want to stay there, and thus non mobility might be a problem for you. Stated differently, although some of its non mobility is self selection, its non mobility also probably reinforces its non mobility to some degree.

There are also several law schools in Cali that are one the rise and might be able to start stealing away talent from USC one day. Therefore recruiting top out of state talent will be increasingly important if USC wants to keep its medians up relative to schools like WUSTL.

As far as mobility, yes WUSTL is more mobile than USC by far. (a good resource for this comparison - http://www.nalplawschoolsonline.org/). Granted though, this is also somewhat forced/self-selection. Not a ton of WUSTL grads want to stay in St. Louis, and St. Louis is not a huge legal market. So alot of them leave by force or by choice. However, regardless of the reason for its mobility, it is more mobile. This mobility might attract more top students from other regions who want to keep their options open.

I also could be wrong though. Can we get some USC perspectives?

sure, USC grads stay in LA and WUSTL grads go all round the country, thus WUSTL is more mobile. I agree. but my point was that at this point - when we're talking about two schools that are not top law schools - calling a school more "mobile" is a euphemism for saying they have no market they're especially strong at. at the upper levels, schools without set markets (such as michigan) can tout their "mobility" as a strength, but at this level i think it's all about trying to make up for what your school lacks in prestige with local strength. like i said, both USC grads and WUSTL grads are hoping to be competitive against t-14 grads with similar class ranks. at least USC can do so in one market (LA), WUSTL can't do so anywhere.

also, i'm a 0L so my opinion has been formed based on what i've learned here and there, not from actual experience. i'd also love to hear from actual WUSTL and USC grads.

You're not really giving St. Louis much credit here. I realize it isn't a prime market, but it isn't exactly Bumfuck, North Dakota either. I believe it has more practicing attorneys than Atlanta, which is often referenced as a desirable secondary market. It's not a Biglaw hub, but there are still jobs to be had.

whitman wrote:I'd always assumed USC was more mobile than WashU. I think there might be more of an element of self-selection than you're accounting for. People want to stay on the West Coast because they like it, and went to USC partially because they had that intention. They go to WashU and think, let me get the FUCK out of here.

Maybe I'm wrong. What do y'all think? Does USC provide any sort of mobility, objectively speaking? If not, where does its reach extend to? Just SoCal? all of California? Pacific Northwest? Rest of the country? How about compared to WashU?

I think you're right that self-selection is a big part USC's non mobility. Only 32% of USC's students come from outside the state, and thus the majority of USC students are from and want to stay in Cali, and probably don't care about its non mobility. But I also think that its non mobility does, or might in the future, prevent it from attracting top out of state candidates. As I said before, if you're not from Cali, you might not want to stay there, and thus non mobility might be a problem for you. Stated differently, although some of its non mobility is self selection, its non mobility also probably reinforces its non mobility to some degree.

There are also several law schools in Cali that are one the rise and might be able to start stealing away talent from USC one day. Therefore recruiting top out of state talent will be increasingly important if USC wants to keep its medians up relative to schools like WUSTL.

As far as mobility, yes WUSTL is more mobile than USC by far. (a good resource for this comparison - http://www.nalplawschoolsonline.org/). Granted though, this is also somewhat forced/self-selection. Not a ton of WUSTL grads want to stay in St. Louis, and St. Louis is not a huge legal market. So alot of them leave by force or by choice. However, regardless of the reason for its mobility, it is more mobile. This mobility might attract more top students from other regions who want to keep their options open.

I also could be wrong though. Can we get some USC perspectives?

sure, USC grads stay in LA and WUSTL grads go all round the country, thus WUSTL is more mobile. I agree. but my point was that at this point - when we're talking about two schools that are not top law schools - calling a school more "mobile" is a euphemism for saying they have no market they're especially strong at. at the upper levels, schools without set markets (such as michigan) can tout their "mobility" as a strength, but at this level i think it's all about trying to make up for what your school lacks in prestige with local strength. like i said, both USC grads and WUSTL grads are hoping to be competitive against t-14 grads with similar class ranks. at least USC can do so in one market (LA), WUSTL can't do so anywhere.

also, i'm a 0L so my opinion has been formed based on what i've learned here and there, not from actual experience. i'd also love to hear from actual WUSTL and USC grads.

You're not really giving St. Louis much credit here. I realize it isn't a prime market, but it isn't exactly Bumfuck, North Dakota either. I believe it has more practicing attorneys than Atlanta, which is often referenced as a desirable secondary market. It's not a Biglaw hub, but there are still jobs to be had.

you're right. if someone knows he/she wants to stay in stl, WUSTL is probably as smart a choice as USC is for an LA guy and emory is for an ATL guy. i guess whether WUSTL has a strong home market or not is irrelevant to my original question of whether "mobility" truly exists at this level of the rankings, or if it's just a buzzword to cover the fact that WUSTL's home market is not considered desirable by many people (regardless of its size).

if it's the latter, i think someone who knows he/she doesn't want to work in STL shouldn't go to WUSTL because of its "mobility"; instead he/she should go to the best school that is in the city/region he/she wants to work in, even if it means giving up a few spots in the rankings. i say this because what i've gathered so far is that after the top 10 or so schools, pick based on region, since any notion of "mobility" is a false hope. perhaps i'm wrong.

dcgbm wrote:you're right. if someone knows he/she wants to stay in stl, WUSTL is probably as smart a choice as USC is for an LA guy and emory is for an ATL guy. i guess whether WUSTL has a strong home market or not is irrelevant to my original question of whether "mobility" truly exists at this level of the rankings, or if it's just a buzzword to cover the fact that WUSTL's home market is not considered desirable by many people (regardless of its size).

if it's the latter, i think someone who knows he/she doesn't want to work in STL shouldn't go to WUSTL because of its "mobility"; instead he/she should go to the best school that is in the city/region he/she wants to work in, even if it means giving up a few spots in the rankings. i say this because what i've gathered so far is that after the top 10 or so schools, pick based on region, since any notion of "mobility" is a false hope. perhaps i'm wrong.

No, that's accurate. It would be silly to attend WUSTL without any desire to work in the midwest, just as it would be foolish to go to USC without a tolerance for SoCal. St. Louis just gets no respect around here, so I figured I'd stand up for it.

dcgbm wrote:you're right. if someone knows he/she wants to stay in stl, WUSTL is probably as smart a choice as USC is for an LA guy and emory is for an ATL guy. i guess whether WUSTL has a strong home market or not is irrelevant to my original question of whether "mobility" truly exists at this level of the rankings, or if it's just a buzzword to cover the fact that WUSTL's home market is not considered desirable by many people (regardless of its size).

if it's the latter, i think someone who knows he/she doesn't want to work in STL shouldn't go to WUSTL because of its "mobility"; instead he/she should go to the best school that is in the city/region he/she wants to work in, even if it means giving up a few spots in the rankings. i say this because what i've gathered so far is that after the top 10 or so schools, pick based on region, since any notion of "mobility" is a false hope. perhaps i'm wrong.

No, that's accurate. It would be silly to attend WUSTL without any desire to work in the midwest, just as it would be foolish to go to USC without a tolerance for SoCal. St. Louis just gets no respect around here, so I figured I'd stand up for it.

Amen. Glad somebody else is reppin' for the 314.

Also, I agree with your rankings. I do think WUSTL surpasses USC this year or next year. But I will say, once you become a student, you really never pay attention to rankings ever again.

It wouldn't be out of the norm for the rankigns to normalize a bit and WUSTL to drop a few spaces. I doubt it will go back to the 30s, but it definitely "could" drop to the 25-30 range.

Further, all of the schools ranked 15-30 could drop or move up. These schools are seperated by only a few points each year. Minor deviations have significant effects in this group, which is why most of us on TLS don't really put much stock into the difference in ranking between 15-30. Apparently, neither do the law firms:http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... hool-.html

It wouldn't be out of the norm for the rankigns to normalize a bit and WUSTL to drop a few spaces. I doubt it will go back to the 30s, but it definitely "could" drop to the 25-30 range.

Further, all of the schools ranked 15-30 could drop or move up. These schools are seperated by only a few points each year. Minor deviations have significant effects in this group, which is why most of us on TLS don't really put much stock into the difference in ranking between 15-30. Apparently, neither do the law firms:http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... hool-.html

Huh? WUSTL has been ranked in the top 20 for the last 4-5 years, and its scores have been steadily increasing. Like Romo said, WUSTL is much more likely to move up a spot than to fall back in the rankings. This almost certainly won't affect employment, but that's out of the scope of this discussion.

It seemed to me like the major thing keeping Illinois out of the T20 was its lower median LSAT, given that it has increased a full point with the class of 2013 it seems like there is a decent chance it will move up.

It seemed to me like the major thing keeping Illinois out of the T20 was its lower median LSAT, given that it has increased a full point with the class of 2013 it seems like there is a decent chance it will move up.

Informative wrote:Further, all of the schools ranked 15-30 could drop or move up. These schools are seperated by only a few points each year. Minor deviations have significant effects in this group, which is why most of us on TLS don't really put much stock into the difference in ranking between 15-30. Apparently, neither do the law firms:http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... hool-.html

Are you serious? You're awakening the Vandy troll in me...

(Not that NLJ 250 is all that matters though, either--there are some great, market-paying jobs at smaller-sized firms.)